Kerala High Court
Ibrahim vs The Regional Transport Authority on 3 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1945
WA NO. 1024 OF 2022
JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2022 IN WP(C) 22962/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
HASKER, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAMED HAJI, ALANGADAN
HOUSE, KARAKUNNU P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM - 676
123.
BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1, 2, 4 & 5:
1 IBRAHIM, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. KUNHALAVI, KUZHIKATTIL
HOUSE, MUNDERI P.O., CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM - 679
334.
2 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., MALAPURAM-676 505.
3 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O.,
MALAPURAM-676 505.
4 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
5 THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM -
682 011.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.03.2023, ALONG WITH WA.486/2023, THE COURT ON 03.04.2023
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.1024/2022 & 486/2023
..2..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1945
WA NO. 486 OF 2023
JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2022 IN WP(C) 22962/2022 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WP(C):
IBRAHIM, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O KUNHALAVI,
KUZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, MUNDERI P.O, CHUNGATHARA,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679334
BY ADVS.
P.DEEPAK
NAZRIN BANU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676505
2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MALAPPURAM, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
3 HASKAR, S/O KUNHAMMED HAJI, ALANGADAN HOUSE,
KARAKUNNU P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676123
WA Nos.1024/2022 & 486/2023
..3..
4 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695023
5 THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.03.2023, ALONG WITH WA.1024/2022, THE COURT ON
03.04.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.1024/2022 & 486/2023
..4..
JUDGMENT
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
These intra court appeals are filed challenging
judgment dated 15.07.2022 in WP(C) No.22962 of 2022
rendered by the learned Single Judge.
2. WA No.1024 of 2022 is filed by the third
respondent in WP(C) No.22962 of 2022 and WA No.486 of
2023 is filed by the writ petitioner. For convenience, the
parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.
3. The petitioner and the third respondent are
stage carriage operators conducting stage carriage
service on the strength of regular permits granted by the
Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Malappuram, on
intra-regional routes falling within the revenue district of
Malappuram. The petitioner is conducting stage carriage
service on the route, Akampadam-Chalikkal, and the third
respondent is operating on the route, Chalikkal-Manjeri.
The third respondent submitted an application before the
WA Nos.1024/2022 & 486/2023
..5..
RTA for variation of the condition of the permit issued to
him. The variation proposal involved curtailment of two
existing trips. At the time of consideration of the said
application, the petitioner's predecessor in interest filed
Ext.P2 objection to the variation of the permit proposed
by the third respondent. After taking into consideration
the objections of the petitioner's predecessor in interest
as also the KSRTC, the RTA rejected the application of the
third respondent as per Ext.P3 order. Challenging Ext.P3
order, the third respondent filed appeal before the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT). After hearing the
third respondent, the RTA and the KSRTC, Ext.P3 order
was set aside vide Ext.P4 judgment by the STAT and the
RTA was directed to reconsider the application for
variation. Thereafter, the third respondent filed WP(C)
No.10012 of 2021 and this Court, vide Ext.P5 judgment,
directed the RTA to pass orders on the application
submitted by the third respondent for variation of permit.
In WP(C) No.10012 of 2021, none of the objectors were
WA Nos.1024/2022 & 486/2023
..6..
made a party. On the basis of Ext.P5 judgment, the RTA
allowed the application for variation filed by the third
respondent subject to settlement of timings by taking
note of the representation submitted by the permit
holder. Subsequently, as per Ext.P7 order, the RTA settled
timings in respect of stage carriage bearing No.KL-58-C-
6537 belonging to the third respondent. Aggrieved by
Exts.P6 and P7 passed by the RTA, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.22962 of 2022
and as per the impugned judgment, this Court set aside
Ext.P7 order and remitted the matter to the RTA for
reconsideration. It is aggrieved by this, WA No.1024 of
2022 was filed by the third respondent seeking to set
aside the impugned judgment. WA No.486 of 2023 was
filed by the writ petitioner, on the ground that the learned
Single Judge quashed Ext.P7 and remitted back to the
RTA for reconsideration of the settlement of timings,
without setting aside Ext.P6 proceedings, by which the
application for variation of permit was allowed.
WA Nos.1024/2022 & 486/2023
..7..
4. Heard the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner, learned counsel for the third respondent,
learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing
Counsel for KSRTC.
5. Ext.P3 order passed by the RTA rejecting the
application for variation was taken by the third
respondent in appeal before the STAT. As per Ext.P4
judgment, the STAT set aside Ext.P3 order passed by the
RTA and directed the RTA to reconsider the application of
the third respondent. It is to be noted that while passing
Ext.P3 order, the petitioner's predecessor in interest, who
was an objector, was heard and it was thus, the RTA had
rejected the application of the third respondent for
variation of permit. However, in the appeal filed before
the STAT, the predecessor in interest of the writ
petitioner was not made a party to the proceedings, who
was an objector to the application for variation of permit.
Thereafter, two writ petitions were filed by the third
respondent before this Court, wherein the petitioner's
WA Nos.1024/2022 & 486/2023
..8..
predecessor in interest, who is alleged to be an affected
person in the route operated by the third respondent, was
not made a party at all. Ext.P7 proceedings of the RTA
reveals that a timing conference was convened on
17.06.2022 and it was on the same day, Ext.P7
proceedings was passed. The learned counsel for the
third respondent submitted that the petitioner's
predecessor in interest had concurred with Ext.P6
proceedings and did not choose to file an appeal and as
decided by this Court in Ratheesh v. Regional Transport
Authority [2015(1) KLT 248], the right under proviso to
Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989,
confines to challenge the variation of timings and it
cannot be read as a right to the challenge the very grant
of permit.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the timing conference stated to have been
conducted on 17.06.2022, as could be seen from Ext.P7
proceedings, was never notified by the RTA. It is an
WA Nos.1024/2022 & 486/2023
..9..
admitted fact that the Ext.P1 permit was originally issued
to one Abdul Salam and it was transferred to the
petitioner herein only with effect from 05.07.2022. The
petitioner's predecessor in interest did not file any appeal
against Ext.P6 proceedings. But, if the petitioner is
having any grievance with regard to Ext.P6, his remedy is
to file an appeal before the STAT. The petitioner,
admittedly, is sharing a common route of 30 km from
Nilambur-Chalikkal with the 3rd respondent. Ext.P7 order
though reflects that timing conference was held on
17.06.2022, it was found to have been passed in a haste.
At the time of passing Ext.P7 order, the petitioner's
predecessor was the owner of the stage carriage bearing
registration No.KL 10-Y-5670. The permit was transferred
to the name of the petitioner only on 05.07.2022. The
petitioner is also aggrieved by the new timings granted to
the third respondent. The learned Single Judge rightly
found that the matter requires reconsideration, set aside
Ext.P7 order and directed the RTA to reconsider the
WA Nos.1024/2022 & 486/2023
..10..
settlement of timings.
7. On a consideration of the entire facts in this
case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
findings of the learned Single Judge in setting aside
Ext.P7 order. However, we make it clear that the
petitioner, if aggrieved by Ext.P6 proceedings, shall
approach the STAT by way of appeal under Section 89 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in accordance with law.
On the basis of the findings as above, we are inclined
to pass the following orders;
a) WA No.486 of 2023 is disposed of, directing the
petitioner to approach the STAT by way of appeal
against Ext.P6 proceedings of the RTA dated
02.10.2021 in accordance with law, if so advised.
b) WA No.1024 of 2022 is dismissed.
c) It is made clear that the RTA shall reconsider the
settlement of timings granted to stage carriage
bearing No.KL-58-C-6537 and pass orders with
notice to the petitioner and all affected parties, in
WA Nos.1024/2022 & 486/2023
..11..
accordance with law, within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
d) Till a decision as above is taken by the RTA, status
quo as on today shall be maintained.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
WA Nos.1024/2022 & 486/2023
..12..
APPENDIX OF WA 1024/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) 27763 OF 2021.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF TIMING
CONFERENCE SCHEDULED TO 17.6.2022 .
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE VARIED PERMIT ISSUED
TO THE APPELLANT.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE NOTIFICATION DATED 23.3.2017.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C). NO:
30161/2017 DATED 15.3.2018.
Annexure A6 TUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
THE SECRETARY DATED 12.2.2023.
